[Political Junkie Too]

Here's the problem in Michigan.

It's probably true that a single (or handful) of individual legislators don't have standing to sue because the Constitution refers to the legislature as a body. I would think that the Speaker of the House of Representatives of Michigan would have standing to sue, but the Speaker is a Democrat (Joe Tate).

-PJ

[Political Junkie Too]

On the other hand, I'd like to see something like the Michigan Republican Party sue on 14th amendment equal protection grounds, citing:

1. >The voters of Michigan have an expectation that the Constitution would be followed in Michigan the same way it is followed in the other states, that the people voted for legislatures who passed election laws, and unconstitutional changes to those laws that bypass the duly elected legislature violates equal protection.
2. The Michigan Republican Party should have standing because the state authorizes their primaries and general elections to the state legislature. Why have elections if the constitutional power of the legislature can be easily set aside at the whim of the majority party when it suits their needs?

In 2020, Texas and other states tried to sue to stop states that unconstitutionally changed their election laws, and their case was dismissed for lack of standing (ostensibly because they weren't entities within those states). That's why a bod like the MI GOP might have standing, since the state authorizes their primaries.

-PJ

[AndyJackson]

Does thei individual legislator have a specific particularizex harm or invaded right that can be addressed by the courts? Yes. He as a legislator has the right under the constitution to propose, debate and vote on regulations for the conduct of elections. That right was denied him in particular.